How Hot is Israel Gonna Get?

[Probus]

10 minutes ago, Chudacabra said:

There are lots of examples of multi-religious or multi-ethnic states or of neighbouring states of different religions or ethnicities living beside each other, often for the better. There is no inherent reason why this place should be any different.

Other than its neighbors vowing to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. If they can just get them to take that line out of their “constitutions”, things might get better. 

[kohlenklau]

My lyrics in progress...

Everybody was woke-fu fighting.

Those lefties were fast as lightning.

It was a little bit frightening.

They morally equivocated with expert timing.

He said "decolonize!"

She said "Look at Israel's size!"

Stop killing the poor kids!

Except when they're "yidz"

Chorus 

 

[Chudacabra]

3 hours ago, Probus said:

Other than its neighbors vowing to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. If they can just get them to take that line out of their “constitutions”, things might get better. 

The PLO did this in the mid-1990s and I don't believe that any of the sovereign countries around Israel have this in their constitution, but correct me if I'm wrong. The Palestinian Authority has been just about the only player to live up to its obligations and has been consistently willing to negotiate. It has also been systemically undermined by Netanyahu's successive governments, who backed Hamas as a means of dividing and discrediting the Palestinians. Smotrich was quite explicit about this approach in 2015: “The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset. It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.” Netanyahu just boasted about specifically not pursuing a two-state solution. Smotrich has also been quite explicit about his desire to formally annex at least parts of the West Bank. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nimrod-novik.html I thought this was an excellent interview with a former Shimon Peres advisor, where he quite clearly made the case that Israeli security cannot be predicated on the oppression of the Palestinians and that it is in Israel's interest to provide a viable future for the Palestinians.

Hamas and many sitting Israeli cabinet ministers have used similar genocidal rhetoric. I don't find it to be a very difficult position to feel that neither Israelis or Palestinians in positions of power should openly consider genocide or ethnic cleansing. This is not some age old conflict between Jews and Muslims, but rather a product of a modern political project. However, it is long past due to figure out a political solution that allows Palestinians and Israelis to live together in peace. Both sides have bugled negotiations (sometimes at the same time) and both sides have done terrible things, but who can possibly think that a dramatic escalation in violence will break a cycle of violence? Even Israel itself shows that while there's certainly room for improvement, there's also no reason why Israeli Jews can't live together with Arab Christians or Muslims. It's a political problem that requires a political solution. I think there are three viable options (one secular state, two federated states, or two fully sovereign states), so best get to figuring it out.

[kohlenklau]

4 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

It's a political problem that requires a political solution. I think there are three viable options (one secular state, two federated states, or two fully sovereign states), so best get to figuring it out.

Thanks for the report.

I admit I have a bias. This thing in my small brain is like watching a buddy get a divorce. I want him to get the best deal. I am on his side. I know he aint perfect - but that bitch wife and her lawyer, screw them!

 

[Carolus]

Seeing as Israel has a very modern military (communication, target selection, hierarchy and organisiation is as sophisticated as it gets), which group in the chain of command would be the most likely to blame for a bomb that hit a non-legitimate target?

How much influence do politicians have on the decisions of officers within the chain of target selection? 

I always assumed that politicians can set the general strategic goals, but the military personnel follows largely the rules they got drilled with for years as they go through the minituae of the daily grind.

Would emotions running high among the leaders and population lead to potentially very expensive weaponry being dropped on illegal and useless targets? Do pilots edge each other on? Despite knowing about the thick media coverage of it all? Are mobilised reserve troops the problem because they lack professionalism? Are mobilised reserves even much involved in selection for airstrikes? I would think a modern airforce is one of those branches which is made up entirely of long-term employed professionals, simply because it is too complicated to learn quickly. 

I just wonder how a potentially solid case could be made if someone tried to make one on the international stage. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Carolus

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Carolus said:

Seeing as Israel has a very modern military (communication, target selection, hierarchy and organisiation is as sophisticated as it gets), which group in the chain of command would be the most likely to blame for a bomb that hit a non-legitimate target?

How much influence do politicians have on the decisions of officers within the chain of target selection? 

I always assumed that politicians can set the general strategic goals, but the military personnel follows largely the rules they got drilled with for years as they go through the minituae of the daily grind.

Would emotions running high among the leaders and population lead to potentially very expensive weaponry being dropped on illegal and useless targets? Do pilots edge each other on? Despite knowing about the thick media coverage of it all? Are mobilised reserve troops the problem because they lack professionalism? Are mobilised reserves even much involved in selection for airstrikes? I would think a modern airforce is one of those branches which is made up entirely of long-term employed professionals, simply because it is too complicated to learn quickly. 

I just wonder how a potentially solid case could be made if someone tried to make one on the international stage. 

Short answer is “Chain of Command”.  It would start with who had what authorities and who granted those authorities.  Politicians are famous for trying to push any and all illegal activities onto the military.  It is rare for political level prosecution to occur, but it does happen (eg Yugoslavia).  So in the case of the IDF the first question will be: what were the Rules of Engagement?  Who developed them?  Who authorized them?  If the ROEs were weak or outright illegal then responsibility will be much higher and wider.

Next is how were those ROEs interpreted?  So targeting in the modern era is pretty complex.  Rarely is a Bn CO given authority to call in airstrikes, especially in a counter-insurgency type scenario with this many civilians around.  It would be held at the formation or operational level.  The tactical unit can call for fire but the collateral estimates and authority is normally held at a higher level.  The Bn is responsible for its own organic fires, which are substantial and making responsible requests for support.  However, final release for aircraft would be held higher, unless that aircraft was actually directly attached to that tactical unit…again rare.

So for an individual incident, say a soldier shooting a civilian.  An investigation would include all the background ROEs and authorities, and then would look at the context of the situation.  What was happening on the ground?  Was this an isolated incident or did this unit interpret the ROEs more loosely than others?  As the incident widens, so does the investigation.  An airstrike is going to be formation level or higher.

In the case of the IDF right now, based on the levels of destruction and frequency of reports, I would expect an international investigation.  The main reason is that parts of Gaza look like free-fire zones right now.  These are areas of basically weapons free ROEs.  Airstrikes are levelling neighbourhoods and hitting all sorts of questionable targets.  This would suggest a sanctioning of illegal ROEs coming from near the top…possibly all the way up.  This speaks to more than a few units getting out of hand, it may speak to a systemic and deliberate violation of the LOAC in both the IDF and political level.  That is The Hauge type stuff.

18 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

It's a political problem that requires a political solution. I think there are three viable options (one secular state, two federated states, or two fully sovereign states), so best get to figuring it out.

It speaks to this.  There is a military solution - clean out Gaza and ensure the Palestinians never come back.  If one were to pursue it, the overall results would not look all that different from what we are seeing - deliberate systemic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza with intent to ensure the place is uninhabitable.  This is a form of ethnic cleansing and has been practiced elsewhere, we have precedent.  And frankly Israel appears to be pursuing this strategy.  Unlike individuals, states are not afforded the right to presumed innocence, particularly in wartime.  Based on the levels of widespread destruction there is enough here to raise more than a few red flags.

[Carolus]

Thank you for the lengthy explanation @The_Capt

Edited December 26, 2023 by Carolus

[Chudacabra]

10 hours ago, Carolus said:

Seeing as Israel has a very modern military (communication, target selection, hierarchy and organisiation is as sophisticated as it gets), which group in the chain of command would be the most likely to blame for a bomb that hit a non-legitimate target?

How much influence do politicians have on the decisions of officers within the chain of target selection? 

I always assumed that politicians can set the general strategic goals, but the military personnel follows largely the rules they got drilled with for years as they go through the minituae of the daily grind.

Would emotions running high among the leaders and population lead to potentially very expensive weaponry being dropped on illegal and useless targets? Do pilots edge each other on? Despite knowing about the thick media coverage of it all? Are mobilised reserve troops the problem because they lack professionalism? Are mobilised reserves even much involved in selection for airstrikes? I would think a modern airforce is one of those branches which is made up entirely of long-term employed professionals, simply because it is too complicated to learn quickly. 

I just wonder how a potentially solid case could be made if someone tried to make one on the international stage. 

https://www.972mag.com/israel-bombing-endangered-hostages-gaza/

https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

The Israeli magazine +972 has published some excellent coverage of the IDF's bombardment campaign and the rationale (or lack thereof) behind it.

[kohlenklau]

If I was in charge of the IDF, some type of defensible in court, evidence producing process would be in place to ease the burden on the fighting forces. 

Leaflets dropped on target area. Mission number in database with a/c tail number and pilots serial number.

PA announcements in Arabic by Psyops Unit Yada Yada. Date and time of announcements. 

Observer is an officer. No children seen. 

Weapon is employed. 

Post mission BDA is documented.

Improve the process as needed.

File it away.

Next mission.

 

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

If I was in charge of the IDF, some type of defensible in court, evidence producing process would be in place to ease the burden on the fighting forces. 

Leaflets dropped on target area. Mission number in database with a/c tail number and pilots serial number.

PA announcements in Arabic by Psyops Unit Yada Yada. Date and time of announcements. 

Observer is an officer. No children seen. 

Weapon is employed. 

Post mission BDA is documented.

Improve the process as needed.

File it away.

Next mission.

 

Read the article @Chudacabra just posted.  Gives a very good break down of what is happening.  A veneer of defence is just that, under scrutiny it becomes pretty evident very quickly that laws of armed conflict are being violated.  For example, blowing up a high rise full of civilians because “Hamas met there once” is well outside the LOAC.  The power targets, which are an admitted IDF target set, are also no more legitimate under the LOAC than Russian cruise missile strikes on Ukrainian high rises.

Finally, you are clearly a civilian and do not understand just how dangerous the scenario you paint is for a military organization.  Beyond moral injury and exposing your own troops to war criminality, this sort of “painting over” is how really bad things happen.  It creates a level of acceptability that erodes military discipline.

 “Ok guys, we all know higher is playing cover up so shoot who you want.”  “Hey Sarge, can we rape Palestinian women too?”  Civilians have just about zero understanding about just how slippery a slope warfare is.  They think it is all “drama”.  In reality “killing” is among the easiest things to do.  Morally a military organization can find itself upside down very fast.  Officers and NCOs spend an inordinate amount of time making sure scared heavily armed teenagers don’t get out of hand in fighting the enemy.  They do this primarily to ensure things don’t get so bad that those teenagers don’t start shooting each other.

If the IDF keeps going the way they are it will be nearly impossible to tell them apart from the RA in a few months.  

[kohlenklau]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Read the article

I did now. Thanks. Good stuff. 

EDIT: Does anyone have any articles that look into what Hamas thinks or is thinking or what Gaza "Palestinians" think of Hamas and the current war? 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by kohlenklau

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

The Israeli magazine +972 has published some excellent coverage of the IDF's bombardment campaign and the rationale (or lack thereof) behind it.

The name of the magazine “is derived from the telephone area code that is shared by Israel and Palestine.”

While the publication claims that it “does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda,” the “About” section of website states: “we oppose the occupation.” In addition, the blog presents highly biased perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict and promotes the Durban strategy to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/_magazine/

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

The name of the magazine “is derived from the telephone area code that is shared by Israel and Palestine.”

While the publication claims that it “does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda,” the “About” section of website states: “we oppose the occupation.” In addition, the blog presents highly biased perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict and promotes the Durban strategy to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/_magazine/

Okay, now that adds some context to the "unnamed sources within the IDF". 

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Probus said:

The name of the magazine “is derived from the telephone area code that is shared by Israel and Palestine.”

While the publication claims that it “does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda,” the “About” section of website states: “we oppose the occupation.” In addition, the blog presents highly biased perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict and promotes the Durban strategy to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/_magazine/

Dude…c’mon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor

I applaud fact checking but check your checks.

I mean the head of this thing worked directly for the Israeli government. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_M._Steinberg

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by The_Capt

[Probus]

Well dang @The_Capt! Neither of these organizations are trustworthy I guess. Who do you trust anymore. At least I checked the 972 website’s About page and what the NGO says is true. They are anti-occupation and pro Palestinian.  I guess they are upfront about it. 

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Probus said:

Well dang @The_Capt! Neither of these organizations are trustworthy I guess. Who do you trust anymore. At least I checked the 972 website’s About page and what the NGO says is true. They are anti-occupation and pro Palestinian.  I guess they are upfront about it. 

I honestly have no idea.  I do some cross-checking but just about everywhere is biased these days…hell it can bleed into wiki.  In the end I try to hear from different sources and kinda trust the overlaps.

[Chudacabra]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I honestly have no idea.  I do some cross-checking but just about everywhere is biased these days…hell it can bleed into wiki.  In the end I try to hear from different sources and kinda trust the overlaps.

All media has always been biased. There's nothing wrong with a particular point of view informing journalism as long as you're not pretending otherwise. Much better to be upfront about it and take biases into consideration instead of pretending to be "Fair and Balanced."

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

All media has always been biased. There's nothing wrong with a particular point of view informing journalism as long as you're not pretending otherwise. Much better to be upfront about it and take biases into consideration instead of pretending to be "Fair and Balanced."

I would argue the level of spin has gone to new heights in the last couple of decades.  Journalism in the past did attempt some level of objectivity but telling people what they want to hear appears to have gone into overdrive with the advent of modern information technology.  Journalism is not even really a profession anymore, with standards and norms.  It has become millions of megaphones all projecting the world as they see it.

We are living in an ocean of easily accessible information.  And of course everyone is picking whatever truths they wish.  Earth is flat.  Nukes are a myth.  Mass shootings are all crisis actors.  Democracy was stolen.  As we try and understand a war in motion trying to “see” it has become even harder.  

[Carolus]

16 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Dude…c’mon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor

I applaud fact checking but check your checks.

I mean the head of this thing worked directly for the Israeli government. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_M._Steinberg

Welp, thank you...

15 hours ago, Probus said:

Well dang @The_Capt! Neither of these organizations are trustworthy I guess. Who do you trust anymore. At least I checked the 972 website’s About page and what the NGO says is true. They are anti-occupation and pro Palestinian.  I guess they are upfront about it. 

Interestingly, 972 is being derided as a "zionist hate website" that still "supports the ongoing total genocide of the Palestinian people" when you look at some pro-Palestinian comments about the outlet (after diving through the usual content of pro-Palestinian humanists about their wishes to kill all jews with a rusty machete etc.).

On a completely different note, this fellow here makes maps about the ground situation which he claims are based on geo-confirmed appearances of the IDF. I think the maps are quite nice. 

 

 

 

[kohlenklau]

@The_Capt I did 21.5 years in the navy. Not a ground pounder. I did pound the seafloor as a diver!  Did 3 weeks with the army at jump school. That was enough.

My one and only ROE story! Get the popcorn (satire). Cue the sounds of the sea. It was 1991 and my little minesweeper was clearing Mine Danger Area 10 in the North Arabian Gulf ("The NAG"). All of a sudden some hostile looking Boston Whalers came at us and we went to General Quarters. Our weapons were fairly modest. Mk19 40mm grenade launchers, some M2HB .50 cals, some M60 MG's. Flak jackets and kevlar helmets. The Captain said "weapons tight" and we watched the boats go by. The fishing nets were there piled on their bow and some odd looking mount thing. These locals didn't blink and went right by. We stood down and all was well. What is for chow?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I work with veterans to help with VA stuff. I just had a client and he reminded me of something. He was in the USAF and was a contracting officer in Saudi Arabia. I don't know what is the current situation but "back in the old days" you were in trouble if your passport had an Israeli stamp in it AND then you visited an Arab country. We had to have a 2nd passport. I just mentioned that as a sign of the hostility that existed against Israel. Maybe nowadays that is not the case. Not sure.

Edited December 27, 2023 by kohlenklau

[Anthony P.]

On 12/25/2023 at 5:21 PM, Chudacabra said:

Israel is not a democracy. It is an ethnostate with some democratic institutions within its 1967 borders, but it lacks equality of citizenship, which is a basic tenet of democracy.

I suppose making "facts" up to fit a narrative greatly helps said narrative... but at the end of the day, most people would still call that "lies".

The "ethnostate" of Israel has a Jewish population which constitutes less than 75%, with most of the remainder of the population being Arab. Few Western countries can lay claim to such a diverse population, and certainly not one other country in the whole of the Middle East. There is no political office which an Arab citizen is ineligible for in Israel, and boiling the <75% Jewish population down to a single ethnicity based simply on their religion is at best ignorant (and at worst, borderline racist) considering the very diverse ethnic backgrounds that Jewish population has, hailing from millenia long histories in Europe, the Middle East, North and East Africa.

[Chudacabra]

6 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

I suppose making "facts" up to fit a narrative greatly helps said narrative... but at the end of the day, most people would still call that "lies".

The "ethnostate" of Israel has a Jewish population which constitutes less than 75%, with most of the remainder of the population being Arab. Few Western countries can lay claim to such a diverse population, and certainly not one other country in the whole of the Middle East. There is no political office which an Arab citizen is ineligible for in Israel, and boiling the <75% Jewish population down to a single ethnicity based simply on their religion is at best ignorant (and at worst, borderline racist) considering the very diverse ethnic backgrounds that Jewish population has, hailing from millenia long histories in Europe, the Middle East, North and East Africa.

How so? My point is that Israel is not just the country within its 1967 borders, but also encompasses the West Bank and Gaza. Israel's rule in the West Bank is incredibly undemocratic, but it is true that non-Jewish Israelis do enjoy similar rights to Jewish Israelis with the notable exception of the right of return, which is extended to any Jewish people even if they have no connection to the land for many centuries. By contrast, Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their land in 1948 have no such right of return. I don't think Israel would ever grant it, but they could negotiate some form of compensation. Since there have been no meaningful negotiations for decades, it's never even been seriously discussed.

Israel's basic law begins with:

1 — Basic Principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

Sounds like a state designed to promote the interests of a specific ethno-religious group (perhaps a more accurate term than ethnic group) to me. A fairly key marker of a secular democracy like Canada where I live is that the state exists to serve the interests of everyone who lives within its borders. Can the same be said of the lands subject to Israeli sovereignty? I would say yes to a considerable extent within the pre-1967 borders and no beyond that. Israel has quite consciously manipulated its demographics to ensure a Jewish majority. Palestine was about 6% Jewish in 1900 with approximately the same proportion of Christians. Early Zionists were quite upfront about the need to displace the Palestinians that lived there, but more recent revisionism has led people to think that Israel is some sort of immemorial nation-state, despite being a political project that began in the 1890s and gained an imperial patron in the form of the UK in the 1910s.

Is it a worthwhile compromise compared to a secular democracy that exists to serve all its citizens? Personally, I think no, but I'm also an atheist who doesn't live in Israel or Palestine. But there are alternatives that would be enormously better than the status quo (I think the Land for All federated two-state proposal is very interesting). There's no one single answer, but fundamentally Israel exercises sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean in ways that are extremely undemocratic (ie. Civil law for some people based on their ethnicity, while other people are subject to military law). In other ways, it does function relatively like a liberal democracy. It's complicated and can more than one thing at a time. Is it a worthwhile or sustainable way to do things in what is functionally a country with approximately equal populations of Jewish Israelis and largely Muslim Palestinians? It never was and October 7th reinforced that.

[kohlenklau]

 

[The_Capt]

14 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

How so? My point is that Israel is not just the country within its 1967 borders, but also encompasses the West Bank and Gaza. Israel's rule in the West Bank is incredibly undemocratic, but it is true that non-Jewish Israelis do enjoy similar rights to Jewish Israelis with the notable exception of the right of return, which is extended to any Jewish people even if they have no connection to the land for many centuries. By contrast, Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their land in 1948 have no such right of return. I don't think Israel would ever grant it, but they could negotiate some form of compensation. Since there have been no meaningful negotiations for decades, it's never even been seriously discussed.

Israel's basic law begins with:

1 — Basic Principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

Sounds like a state designed to promote the interests of a specific ethno-religious group (perhaps a more accurate term than ethnic group) to me. A fairly key marker of a secular democracy like Canada where I live is that the state exists to serve the interests of everyone who lives within its borders. Can the same be said of the lands subject to Israeli sovereignty? I would say yes to a considerable extent within the pre-1967 borders and no beyond that. Israel has quite consciously manipulated its demographics to ensure a Jewish majority. Palestine was about 6% Jewish in 1900 with approximately the same proportion of Christians. Early Zionists were quite upfront about the need to displace the Palestinians that lived there, but more recent revisionism has led people to think that Israel is some sort of immemorial nation-state, despite being a political project that began in the 1890s and gained an imperial patron in the form of the UK in the 1910s.

Is it a worthwhile compromise compared to a secular democracy that exists to serve all its citizens? Personally, I think no, but I'm also an atheist who doesn't live in Israel or Palestine. But there are alternatives that would be enormously better than the status quo (I think the Land for All federated two-state proposal is very interesting). There's no one single answer, but fundamentally Israel exercises sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean in ways that are extremely undemocratic (ie. Civil law for some people based on their ethnicity, while other people are subject to military law). In other ways, it does function relatively like a liberal democracy. It's complicated and can more than one thing at a time. Is it a worthwhile or sustainable way to do things in what is functionally a country with approximately equal populations of Jewish Israelis and largely Muslim Palestinians? It never was and October 7th reinforced that.

The only thing I would add is that Israel has pretty much abandoned any high ground it had on the subject of “equality under the law” in prosecution of this war.  Those Palestinians non-combatants current being dozed under are definitely not being afforded “equality of citizenship”, hell, they are not being afforded the basic tenants of universal human rights at this point:

https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf

This war is entirely  ethnic-centric to the point it is beginning to resemble an ethnic cleansing.  Again allegations are unproven by an international investigation but the circumstantial evidence is becoming overwhelming.  For example, someone is going to need to explain to me the difference between an IDF “power target” and Russian military “terror strike”.
 

[Anthony P.]

15 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

How so? My point is that Israel is not just the country within its 1967 borders, but also encompasses the West Bank and Gaza.

Well no, it doesn't. Occupied territories do not count as part of a country.

That would be like counting Iraq and Afghanistan as the 51st and 52nd states of the US while OEF and OIF were underway.

 

Quote

Israel's rule in the West Bank is incredibly undemocratic, but it is true that non-Jewish Israelis do enjoy similar rights to Jewish Israelis with the notable exception of the right of return, which is extended to any Jewish people even if they have no connection to the land for many centuries.

The right of all nations for self determination has been recognized for over a century now: this includes the formation of a Jewish nation state, and its rights to determine who it offers citizenship to.

 

Quote

By contrast, Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their land in 1948 have no such right of return.

People who are neither citizens nor residents of a country are typically not afforded the same rights as citizens of said country, that is true... and it's not discrimination. There's almost 200 countries in the world, and virtually all of them "discriminates" against non-citizens by refusing to grant them "equal" rights to their own citizens.

And there is at least as much grounds to lay blame on the Palestinians for embarking on a war of extermination against the Jews in 1947 and fleeing after that failed as there is to claim that the Jews intentionally ethnically cleansed them in 1948.

 

Quote

I don't think Israel would ever grant it, but they could negotiate some form of compensation. Since there have been no meaningful negotiations for decades, it's never even been seriously discussed.

I agree, they likely never will. It would be a wholly unprecedented thing to do (millions of Germans, Poles, Finns and many others who were expelled in massive population "transfers" after WW2 were never granted any such recompense).

The concept of Israeli compensation also ignores the fact that just as many Jews living in the Middle East and North Africa were without a shadow of a doubt forcibly expelled to Israel from the countries they'd lived in for thousands of years after 1948. The compensation those 700,000 Jews and their descendants should be eligible for is virtually never afforded any attention, certainly not by anyone espousing the rights of Palestinians to receive compensation.

 

Quote

Sounds like a state designed to promote the interests of a specific ethno-religious group (perhaps a more accurate term than ethnic group) to me. A fairly key marker of a secular democracy like Canada where I live is that the state exists to serve the interests of everyone who lives within its borders.

I would refer to the above point re the right to national self determination. It's a fundamental human right for a nation to determine how it's ruled, by whom, and who it offers citizenship to.

Canada is not a stellar example for what Israel should aspire to be. Native Americans in Canada weren't even afforded unconditional right to vote until 1960. Israel, for all its many faults against Arab citizens and despite being a brand new nation state born under exceedingly turbulent conditions, recognized the right of its Arab citizens to vote in its very first elections.